Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:37:10.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British and American policies in the Persian Gulf, 1968–1973

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 1985

F. Gregory Gause
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The West is now less dependent on Persian Gulf oil than at any time in the last decade. However, the area remains economically and strategically vital. The fact that the recent escalation of hostilities in the desultory Iran-Iraq war has attracted world-wide attention bears disturbing witness to the West's continuing vulnerability in this region. This vulnerability stems, in part, from three crucial decisions—two made in London and one in Washington—during the years 1968 to 1973, Until then, the Persian Gulf was viewed, when it was considered at all, as something of an international anachronism—a sleepy outpost of the fast-dwindling British Empire where Britannia still ruled the waves and the ‘Pax Britannica’ applied as it had since the 1820s. In that six-year period the Labour government of Harold Wilson announced that Britain would end its historic role in the Gulf; the Conservative government of Edward Heath chose not to alter the Labour policy, despite indications that it would do so; and the Nixon administration decided not to ‘fill the vacuum’. This paper assesses these three cases in terms of decision making theory, testing the utility of various theoretical decision making paradigms. Developments in the Gulf itself are treated only in so far as they had an effect on the making of policy in London and Washington.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 247 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Allison, Graham, Essence of Decision (Boston, 1971)Google Scholar, ch. 1. While Allison criticized the rational actor paradigm, a modified version of it still has rigorous and effective defenders. See especially Krasner, Steven, ‘Are Bureaucracies Important? (Or Allison Wonderland)’, Foreign Policy, 7 (Summer 1972)Google Scholar, and by the same author Defending the National Interest (Princeton, NJ, 1978).Google Scholar

2. Allison, ch. 2.

3. Steinbruner, John, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision (Princeton, NJ, 1974).Google Scholar

4. Allison, ch. 5.

5. See especially Halperin, Morton, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Washington, DC, 1974)Google Scholar; and Destler, I. M., Presidents, Bureaucrats and Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ, 1972).Google Scholar

6. See Mayhew, David, Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven, CT, 1974)Google Scholar, for an application of the basic hypothesis of the ‘domestic polities’ paradigm to the study of the American Congress. Quandt, William, Decade of Decisions (Berkeley, 1977), pp. 15–24Google Scholar, analyzes the effect of ‘public opinion’ on American Middle East policy. Some eminent theorists of international relations explain a state's foreign policy means and ends in terms of its ‘national character’. See especially Hoffmann, Stanley, Gulliver's Troubles, or The Setting of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1968)Google Scholar, Part II. While this approach can be very fruitful in analyzing long-term foreign policy trends, it does not seem useful as a tool for analyzing specific foreign policy decisions.

7. Waltz, Kenneth, Democratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Boston, 1967)Google Scholar is an excellent comparison of British and American institutional structures in foreign policy making. See also Franck, Thomas and Weissband, Edward, Foreign Policy by Congress (New York, 1979)Google Scholar and Radway, Laurence, ‘The Curse of Free Elections’, Foreign Policy, 40, (Fall 1980)Google Scholar.

8. Kelly, J. B., Arabia, The Gulf and The West (New York, 1980), p. 99Google Scholar.

9. Grossman, Richard, The Grossman Diaries, Howard, Anthony (ed.), (London, 1979), p. 58Google Scholar. See also Darby, Phillip, British Defence Policy East of Suez, 1947–1968 (London, 1973), pp. 283–4Google Scholar.

10. Darby, p. 291.

11. Ibid. pp. 292–3.

12. Ibid. p. 298.

13. Ibid. pp. 305–6.

14. Ibid. pp. 310–11.

15. Ibid. p. 314.

16. Wilson, Harold, The Labour Government, 1964–1970: A Personal Record (London, 1971), pp. 376–7Google Scholar.

17. Darby, p. 315.,

18. Ibid. p. 316.

19. Wilson, p..377.

20. Darby, p. 317.

21. Quoted in Kelly, p. 47.

22. Ibid. pp. 47–8.

23. Ibid. p. 48.

24. Darby, p. 323.

25. Wilson, p. 479.

26. Ibid. p. 479.

27. The Times, (London) 13 January 1968, p. 1Google Scholar. ‘The depth and emotion of the left wing Labourites’ opposition to overseas commitments can be seen in Grossman, pp. 389–90.

28. Wilson, p. 482. See also New York Times, 19 January 1968, pp. 1Google Scholar, 16.

29. Statement on the Defence Estimates 1968 (London, HMSO, 1968)Google Scholar, Cmnd. 3540, p. 31.

30. Sullivan, Robert R., ‘The Architecture of Western Security in the Persian Gulf’, Orbis, XIV, (Spring 1970), pp. 81–2Google Scholar.

31. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), vol. 758, cols. 1346–7. Hereafter cited as H. C. Deb.

32. The Times, (London) 22 January 1968, p. 1Google Scholar. See also Kelly, pp. 49–50.

33. Kelly, pp. 49–50.

34. Interview with Hermann Eilts, US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1970–4, 1 December 1981. For another indication of the Saudi attitude, see Wilson, p. 396.

35. This conclusion is certainly not original to the author. Watt, D. C., ‘The Decision to Withdraw From the Gulf’, Political Quarterly, 39 (July-September 1968), p. 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘…the decision to withdraw from the Gulf was essentially taken for reasons that have nothing to do with the real gain or loss to Britain's financial position. It was a sop thrown to those whose main interests lay in resisting cuts to domestic social expenditure.’ See also Sullivan, p. 83: ‘Quite simply, the decision to withdraw from the Persian Gulf was a necesary part of a political compromise package.’

36. Kelly, pp. 53–4.

37. Statement on the Defence Estimates 1969 (London, 1969)Google Scholar, Cmnd. 3927, p. 5.

38. For an explication of Heath's foreign policy views while in opposition see Heath, Edward, ‘Realism in British Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs, 48 (October 1969), pp. 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Quoted in Kelly, pp. 57–8.

40. Conservative party, Commonwealth, European and Overseas Review, 26 (January 1968), pp. 9Google Scholar, 12.

41. Ibid., 33 (August-September 1968), p. 6. See also H. C. Deb., vol. 760, col. 257.

42. Kelly, pp. 78–9.

43. See The Times, (London) 7 April 1969, p. 4Google Scholar and 11 April 1969, p. 8, for reports on Heath's visit to the Gulf while in opposition.

44. Quoted in Kelly, p. 79.

45. H. C. Deb., vol. 804, cols. 13–14.

46. The Times, (London) 14 July 1970, p. 5Google Scholar.

47. H. C. Deb., vol. 812, cols. 1228–9, and vol. 813, col. 567.

48. Despite attempts by Sir William Luce to encourage all the states to federate, Bahrain and Qatar opted to retain their separate identities as independent states. Six of the seven Trucial states decided in July 1971 to form the United Arab Emirates, a loosely structured confederation; Ras al-Khaimah, the seventh Trucial state, refused to join (it would do so in 1972). Sir William and the Foreign Office worked through 1971 to settle outstanding territorial questions between the UAE and Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Iran, with mixed results. British military protection officially ended on 30 November 1971, as Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE became formally independent. The last elements of the British military force were withdrawn the same day.

49. Statement on the Defence Estimates 1972 (London, 1972)Google Scholar, Cmnd. 4891, p. 4. Se also Hurewitz, J. C., The Persian Gulf: Prospects for Stability, Headline Series No. 220, Foreign Policy Association, April 1974, p. 25Google Scholar.

50. Brown, Neville, ‘Western Europe and the Indian Ocean’, in Amirie, Abbas (ed.), The Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean in International Politics (Teheran, 1975), pp. 149–50Google Scholar.

51. New York Times, 14 February 1971, p. 23.Google Scholar

52. Written answer by Lord Balniel, Minister of State for Defence, to a Parliamentary inquiry, H. C. Deb., vol. 839, col. 143.

53. Holden, David, ‘The Persian Gulf: After the British Raj’, Foreign Affairs, 49 (July 1971), p. 730CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An interesting reaction to Sir Alec's March 1971 announcement came from Sheikh Isa of Bahrain: ‘Britain could do with another Winston Churchill. Today we see her kicked out of everywhere—or leaving. Britain is weak now where she was once strong. You know we and everybody in the Gulf would have welcomed her staying.’ Quoted in Kelly, p. 92.

54. Kelly, p. 101.

55. H. C. Deb., vol. 812, col. 1227. See also Long, David E., ‘United States Policy Toward the Persian Gulf’, Current History, 68 (February 1975), p. 70Google Scholar.

56. See New York Times, 28 May 1969, p. 6, for CENTO meeting comments on keeping the British and the United States out of the Gulf.

57. New York Times, 7 November 1971, p. 17; The Times, (London) 18 November 1971, p. 7Google Scholar.

58. The Times, (London) 1 December 1971, p. 1Google Scholar.

59. H. C. Deb, vol. 827, col. 949: ‘Sir William Luce tried very hard to. get a successful arrangement with Ras al-Khaimah as he got from Sharjah, but the ruler of Ras al-Khaimah felt he could not make an agreement. I wish it had been possible. We did all we could.’

60. Kelly, p. 59.

61. Ibid. p. 80.

62. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

63. The Times, (London) 4 July 1970, p. 5Google Scholar. See also Kelly, p. 59.

64. Kelly, p. 84.

65. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

66. Darby, p. 325.

67. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

68. Monroe, Elizabeth, The Changing Balance of Power in the Persial Gulf— introduction by Wright, Sir Denis, (New York, 1972), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

69. Interview with Ambassador Eilts. See also Kelly, pp. 97–8.

70. The Times, (London) 8 April 1969, p. 9.Google Scholar

71. Monroe, pp. 14–15.

72. Luce, Sir William, ‘Britain' s Withdrawal from the Middle East and the Persian Gulf’, Royal United Service Institution Journal, 114 (March 1969), pp. 7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73. New York Times, 2 March 1971, pp. 1, 14.

74. The Times, (London) editorial board, which originally opposed the withdrawal decision, supported the Conservative decision: ‘There is, however, no alternative to keeping the timetable’. The Times, (London) 2 March 1971, p. 15Google Scholar. See also The Times, (London) 17 January 1968, p. 11Google Scholar.

75. Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970 (London, 1970)Google Scholar, Cmnd. 4521, p. 7.

76. H. C. Deb., vol. 805, col. 398.

77. Kelly, p. 83.

78. Quoted in Noyes, James H., The Clouded Lens: Persian Gulf Security and U.S. Policy (Stanford, 1979), p. 45Google Scholar.

79. For Navy opinion of this matter see: ‘US Aid to Britain to Assist Her in Meeting Commitments of Combined Interest Overseas’, memo from C-in-C Atlantic to Joint Chiefs of Staff, relayed to White House 6 December 1964, Declassified Documents Reference Service, Retrospective Collection, p. 70E; and ‘US Aid to Britain to Assist Her in Meeting Commitments of Combined Overseas Interest’, memo from C-in-C Strike Force to Joint Chiefs of Staff, relayed to White House 6 December 1964, Declassified Documents Reference Service, Retrospective Collection, p. 71 A.

80. US Congress, House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Development, ‘The Indian Ocean: Political and Strategic Future’, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 164. Hereafter referred to as ‘Indian Ocean Hearings—1971’. See also Darby, pp. 265–6. Also see: ‘Availability of Certain Indian Ocean Islands for Defense Purposes’, Treaties and Other International Acts Series 6196 (Washington, 1967)Google Scholar. Also found in US Government Publications series no. 11846, July 1967. For evidence of the Navy's interest in this project, see Memo from Dean Rusk to President Johnson, ‘Visit of Prime Minister Wilson, July 29, 1966’, Declassified Document Reference Service, 1979 Collection, p. 88A.

81. Darby, p. 294. For a different point of view see Memo from George Ball to President Johnson, ‘Harold Wilson's Visit—The Opportunity for an Act of Statesmanship’, 22 July 1966, Declassified Documents Reference Service, 1978 Collection, p. 208A.

82. Darby, 295–6.

83. Grossman, p. 394.

84. The Times, (London) 12 January 1968, p. 1Google Scholar.

85. The Times, (London) 13 January 1968, p. 4Google Scholar.

86. The Times, (London) 17 January 1968, p. 1Google Scholar.

87. The Times, (London) 9 February 1968, p. 1Google Scholar. The sensitivity of the issue was such that White House officials, upon discovering that Metropolitan Opera tenor Robert Merril had included ‘On the Road to Mandalay’ in the program of entertainment after the state dinner, asked Wilson if the reference to Britain's former Asian Empire would prove embarrassing. Wilson assured them that it would not, and used the incident to good advantage in responding to Conservative criticism in the Commons. Wilson, p. 504.

88. Long, p. 71.

89. Memo from Dean Rusk to President Johnson, ‘Visit of Prime Minister Wilson, July 29, 1966’, 27 July 1966, Declassified Documents Reference Service, 1978 Collection, p. 431B. See also ‘Background Papers on Visit of UK Foreign Secretary George Brown, October 14, 1966’, 7 October 1966, Declassified Documents Reference Service, 1979 Collection, p. 204A.

90. A State Department spokesman on the day the British decision was announced said that the United States had ‘no plans to move in where the British forces pull out’. The Times, (London) 17 January 1968, p. 1Google Scholar.

91. ‘Background Papers on Visit of UK Foreign Secretary George Brown, October 14, 1966’, op. cit.

92. Quoted in Noyes, p. 30.

93. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

94. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

95. Hurewitz, p. 49.

96. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

97. NSSM on the Persian Gulf specifically referred to by Noyes, p. 54.

98. US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Near East, ‘US Interests in and Policy Toward The Persian Gulf’, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, (Washington, 1972), p. 105. Hereafter referred to as’Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’.

99. Interview with Ambassador Eilts. See also Hurewitz, J. C., ‘The Persian Gulf: British Withdrawal and Western Security’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 401 (May 1972), p. 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100. Noyes, p. 54.

101. This greatly simplifies the content of the ‘Nixon Doctrine’, but I believe does justice to its central thrust. See Kissinger, Henry, White House Years (Boston, 1979), pp. 223–5Google Scholar.

102. Noyes, p. 24.

103. Ibid. pp. 12–13.

104. Ibid. p. 4.

105. Ibid. pp. 42–43, 54.

106. Ibid. p. 54. ‘Basing in any of the smaller states would be unacceptable to the two major powers of the area upon whom any workable U.S. policy would have to depend.’ Ibid. p. 55.

107. Ibid. p. 59.

108. New York Times, 18 October 1970, pp. 1, 16.

109. ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, pp. 7–8.

110. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

111. New York Times, 28 November 1970, p. 2.

112. The Times, (London) 27 06 1970, p. 1.Google Scholar

113. Kissinger, pp. 91–6, 937–8.

114. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

115. Kissinger, pp. 1263–4.

116. Ibid. p. 1264.

117. New York Times, 24 October 1969, p. 5.

118. New York Times, 26 April 1970, p. 9.

119. The Times, (London) 23 April 1970, p. 8Google Scholar. See also New York Times, 23 April 1970, p. 17.

120. The Times, (London) 27 June 1970, p. 1Google Scholar. For report of British reluctance, see New York Times, 18 December 1970, p. 3.

121. Department of State Bulletin, vol. 54, no. 1656, (22 March 1971).

122. ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, p. 152.

123. Ibid. p. 154.

124. Long, p. 72.

125. ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, p. 86.

126. Interview with Ambassador Eilts. See also Long, p. 72.

127. Campbell, pp. 46–7.

128. Kubal, Robert, ‘U.S. Policies in the Persian Gulf’, in Mughisuddin, Mohammed (ed.), Conflict and Cooperation in the Persian Gulf (New York, 1977), pp. 168–169Google Scholar.

129. Figures taken from: US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Near East, ‘New Perspectives on the Persian Gulf’, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (Washington, 1973), p. 47. Hereafter referred to as ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1973’.

130. Kubal, p. 172.

131. New York Times, 25 July 1971, pp. 1, 2.

132. ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1973’, p. 11.

133. Interview with Ambassador Eilts. See also Noyes’ statement in ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, p. 26: ‘This [Iranian arms build-up], of course, must be balanced against Saudi Arabia's very real interests’.

134. Statement by Noyes in ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, pp. 6–7.

135. Ibid. p. 83.

136. ‘Indian Ocean Hearings—1971’, pp. iv-v, 111.

137. New York Times, 1 January 1972, pp. 1, 2.

138. ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, pp. 11–12.

139. Hurewitz, The Persian Gulf: Prospects for Stability, p. 51

140. ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, pp. 5, 12.

141. See testimony of Robert Pranger, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, in ‘Indian Ocean Hearings—1971’, p. 171.

142. ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1972’, pp. 83–4.

143. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

144. See Sisco testimony in 1973 in which he referred to the Soviet threat in the region to justify arms sales to Iran: ‘Persian Gulf Hearings—1973’, p. 7. The Soviet Union in April 1972 signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Iraq; also during this period Soviet-South Yemeni ties were being strengthened and the Soviet-backed Dhufari rebels in Oman were very active.

145. Ibid. p. 47. Transfers to Saudi Arabia decreased from $312 million in 1972 to $76 million in 1973. Although no official explanation for the decrease could be found, Saudi involvement in the October War and the oil embargo undoubtedly played a role. Also, Riyadh might have found it difficult to absorb the investment made in 1972 and perhaps requested fewer new arms in 1973.

146. Ibid. p. 9.

147. Statement by Noyes in Ibid. p. 39. For a similar statement by Sisco, asserting that the policy was not a ‘knee-jerk reaction of the last few weeks to a so-called energy crisis’, see Ibid. pp. 5–6, 8–9.

148. Ibid. p. 6.

149. Ibid. p. 195.

150. Ibid. p. 33.

151. See Waltz, op. cit., for a thorough theoretical discussion of the constraints imposed by the parliamentary system on the executive in foreign policy making.

152. Interview with Ambassador Eilts.

153. The freedom from constraints that policy making in a crisis affords the executive, the logical extension of our argument, is discussed in Quandt, pp. 35–6.